Interesting they would look at the A338 over the A339. Their A332 configuration is surprisingly dense, seating 21/293 Vs Norwegians 787s 32/259(-8) and 35/309(-9). I would imagine that the A330 has a good chance.

In the wider group, 787s are already on-property and EI are looking for replacements of their five-strong A332 fleet. They may possibly want more for expansion, but they will have 12-16 A321LRs to digest until 2021. EI have mentioned A333s as 332 replacements, but if they want new -300s they are running out of time. I would think that a joint A330neo order would be in the region of 30-50.

Interesting they would look at the A338 over the A339. Their A332 configuration is surprisingly dense, seating 21/293 Vs Norwegians 787s 32/259(-8) and 35/309(-9). I would imagine that the A330 has a good chance.

Makes sense for them to look at the -800 because they have a dense config. An A338 with smartlav and galley will seat a few extra people, giving you 32t of payload. You are then down to A339 brochure range. If you have such a dense config in an A339 you run out of range quite early and EZE is a bit far away.

That is also probably why they even consider it vs. the 788, that little A338 extra range on top of the, at normal density, ample range for almost all city pairs, starts to matter.

Yep, pretty sure that was before, when Boeing was charging a premium to get in line for the 787. Now that they are coming down in price it is likely very different. Also, what else was he going to say? He can't say the price is perfect. He would lose all negotiation power with both manufacturers at that point.

I would expect the decision to be between the B789 ($281.6m) and A338 ($259.9m). The 788 is actually a fair bit cheaper at $239m, but is not well suited to the LCC market.

Will the 788 be better suited once the 789 features are fully incorporated? I don't know if those will address efficiency, commonality or both. But if delivery dates are sufficiently far out then the 788 might contend here.

Do they pick up any freight on the Spain to South America routes? I imagine the freight flow is strong there. That might make a difference in terms of the freight capability they need in addition to a full pax load.

I would expect the decision to be between the B789 ($281.6m) and A338 ($259.9m). The 788 is actually a fair bit cheaper at $239m, but is not well suited to the LCC market.

Will the 788 be better suited once the 789 features are fully incorporated? I don't know if those will address efficiency, commonality or both. But if delivery dates are sufficiently far out then the 788 might contend here.

It may help, but it's still not going to drop the CASM significantly - the 788 accommodates around 50 fewer seats.

The A338 I feel here can win as they would be sold at a very heavy discount price which Boeing won’t be able to match. Hence the lower capital purchase costs will end up being the big decider as I expect these planes to be with Level for the next 15 years at least.

Plus the CCQ - cross crew qualification rating with the A321 and A330 will help in saving costs over the long run !

Willy once said the 787 is too expensive (purchase) for a LCC. Given that both IB and AerLingus operate A330s I would place my bet on the A330 not the 787.

In a vacuum, yes. However, financing for an A338, which has only about 10 orders right now, is a major issue. The 787-9 as a top-up order from the British Airways order book could make more sense. I’m expecting a direct order here.

BAWLGW wrote:

What markets do we think LEVEL can 'aggressively' expand to?

Once Level gets its own Spanish AOC, as well as using its French AOC, I suspect that they could fly on the Spanish AOC to lower-yield LATAM destinations as well as from BCN, allowing the A332s to get more premium seating. I could also see A332s transferred to Aer Lingus for expansion there. On the French AOC, could Level try overseas French territories, competing with Air France which uses heavier planes?

Last edited by aemoreira1981 on Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The A338 I feel here can win as they would be sold at a very heavy discount price which Boeing won’t be able to match. Hence the lower capital purchase costs will end up being the big decider as I expect these planes to be with Level for the next 15 years at least.

Plus the CCQ - cross crew qualification rating with the A321 and A330 will help in saving costs over the long run !

I disagree. Boeing is pistol-whipping the a330 neo family; their supply chain is so good that they can and have been beating Airbus on price, while still being profitable. They even managed to get HA to dump their a338 order.

The a338 has a shot, for sure, but it won't be because Boeing is too expensive, IMO.

I would expect the decision to be between the B789 ($281.6m) and A338 ($259.9m). The 788 is actually a fair bit cheaper at $239m, but is not well suited to the LCC market.

Good point. I'm surprised the a338 is in discussion as well. Figured a 339 would be similarly better for a LCC.

Regardless, list is one thing, actual is another. Boeing has been playing aggressive with the 787 and I expect them to continue doing so.

The 339 is on paper a better choice but, as Tommy1808 mentions above, in a dense LCC configuration the A339's range is reduced. BCN-EZE may just be possible, (marginal?) as that's similar to KUL-LON (which is supposedly possible now, and key to AirAsia's order) however BCN-SCL at approaching 7,000 miles is going to be out of range. Plus if they are considering future expansion, the A339 is going to be more restricted at MEX, BOG, UIO etc... than an A338.

As much as I would like to see Level acquire 787 aircraft, I believe this is an A330NEO battle to lose. Fleet compatibility with IB will be the deciding consideration unless Airbus is unwilling or unable to make a competitive bid.

The A338 I feel here can win as they would be sold at a very heavy discount price which Boeing won’t be able to match. Hence the lower capital purchase costs will end up being the big decider as I expect these planes to be with Level for the next 15 years at least.

Plus the CCQ - cross crew qualification rating with the A321 and A330 will help in saving costs over the long run !

I disagree. Boeing is pistol-whipping the a330 neo family; their supply chain is so good that they can and have been beating Airbus on price, while still being profitable. They even managed to get HA to dump their a338 order.

The a338 has a shot, for sure, but it won't be because Boeing is too expensive, IMO.

Boeing has been very aggressive, trying to prevent the A330neo gaining any sales momentum. What Boeing did to win the HA order (sold at a loss), they can't repeat with this possible LEVEL order. It is strictly forbidden to sell below cost in a foreign market, when there is a locally produced competing product. In your home market you can sell your products at any price. That's why Airbus lost the HA order (Boeing home market), and why Boeing will lose the LEVEL order (Airbus home market).

The competition will be 787-9 vs A330-800. I wonder if LEVEL will go 9 abreast in the A330-800. The new Airspace by Airbus cabin might be good enough to make the shift to 9 abreast. There is no doubt that the A330neo wins the CASM competition when both aircraft is configured in 9 abreast layout.

I wouldn’t rule out the 787. It has been the go to aircraft for Low-Cost Long-Haul airlines.

Eh? Isn't it just Scoot, Norwegian and Jetstar? Combined about 60-ish 787s? Scoot and Jetstar both inherited the planes from their mother companies. Norwegian and Jetstar ordered and received the planes before the A330NEO had even been launched. By comparison, the Air Asia X order for A330NEOs is for 100x planes, putting the Airbus in the lead among the long-haul LCCs

There has been some talk about LEVEL just being a loss-making tool to kill off Norwegian and other LCCs, after which it can be expected to shut down. IMHO, the fleet choice will reflect this - either the planes will be cheap and easily disposed of (leased planes), of be of a type that fits into the future IAG fleet. In case of the former, the A330NEO could be the favorite, while the latter currently favours the 787. It is worth mentioning that only BA uses the 787 in the IAG group, and future Aer Lingus and Iberia orders could upend that equation completely.

Source? Boeing is not in the habit of selling aircraft at (intentionally) loss-making prices. If they were willing to do so, they would have won a whole bunch of potential 747-8 orders that they lost on pricing. The consensus seems to be that the HA order was enabled by an aggressive and successful effort to cut production costs.

reidar76 wrote:

The competition will be 787-9 vs A330-800. I wonder if LEVEL will go 9 abreast in the A330-800. The new Airspace by Airbus cabin might be good enough to make the shift to 9 abreast. There is no doubt that the A330neo wins the CASM competition when both aircraft is configured in 9 abreast layout.

If the payload requirement is low enough that the 338 is preferable to the 339, why wouldn't the 788 be in the mix as well? Unlike the 338, it has real empty weight savings (mostly as a result of smaller, lighter main gear) compared to big sister 787-9. It has a range deficit compared to the 338, but I have a hard time believing LEVEL is going to be flying ULH.

Willy once said the 787 is too expensive (purchase) for a LCC. Given that both IB and AerLingus operate A330s I would place my bet on the A330 not the 787.

Several years from now Level could take old BA 787-8 and IAG could buy new 787-9/ -10 for BA. Hopefully new BA planes with a new Club World. A350-900 could do the job too at Level too. IAG could always merge with Norwegian or,if they go broke, buy their 787-9 at the Bankruptcy auction. Level id growing one way or another.

If the payload requirement is low enough that the 338 is preferable to the 339, why wouldn't the 788 be in the mix as well? Unlike the 338, it has real empty weight savings (mostly as a result of smaller, lighter main gear) compared to big sister 787-9. It has a range deficit compared to the 338, but I have a hard time believing LEVEL is going to be flying ULH.

It is the performance requirement, not payload. Certain airports in South and Central America are outside of the 'safe' range of the A339 from BCN, or are at an altitude where departures back to Europe are likely face payload restrictions with a high density layout.

Level are already going to be operating BCN-SCL - that's almost 7000 miles and 14h 40m outbound - basically approaching an ULH route.

Yeah this is interesting. Keep in mind though that I would associate LV with IAG as a whole, not just IB. IIRC BA has never owned/operated the A330.

Personally, I think LV will end up choosing the 788. The A338 will force a slightly-lower 8-abreast configuration, while it would be easier to pack more people into a 788's 3-3-3 economy. They could even try 2-3-2 business/premium with the 788.

Some of the upcoming LV routes are rather long. The upcoming BCN-SCL will by a couple km beat AR's FCO-EZE as the longest A330 flight, and with LV's relatively more dense configuration, the A332 may already be pushed to the limits on that flight. Keep in mind that many S. American airports (not SCL, but think SJO, BOG, UIO) are high-altitude, which further diminishes a twinjet's capability. The 788 should have the range for such flights, not so sure about the A338/A339.

Yeah this is interesting. Keep in mind though that I would associate LV with IAG as a whole, not just IB. IIRC BA has never owned/operated the A330.

Personally, I think LV will end up choosing the 788. The A338 will force a slightly-lower 8-abreast configuration, while it would be easier to pack more people into a 788's 3-3-3 economy. They could even try 2-3-2 business/premium with the 788.

Some of the upcoming LV routes are rather long. The upcoming BCN-SCL will by a couple km beat AR's FCO-EZE as the longest A330 flight, and with LV's relatively more dense configuration, the A332 may already be pushed to the limits on that flight. Keep in mind that many S. American airports (not SCL, but think SJO, BOG, UIO) are high-altitude, which further diminishes a twinjet's capability. The 788 should have the range for such flights, not so sure about the A338/A339.

The A338 has 500nm more range than 788 at a similar payload (hence more payload at a similar range). Remeber 789 is the longer ranged aircraft in the 787 family.

Level are already going to be operating BCN-SCL - that's almost 7000 miles and 14h 40m outbound - basically approaching an ULH route.

That is well within the capability of the 788. Both the 788 and the 332 have outstanding hot and high performance, and I'd expect the 338 to as well. The 789 is good but not as good.

Yes it is - but I was explaining why the A338 is preferable to the A339 here, not talking about the 788 or 789.

Irehdna wrote:

Personally, I think LV will end up choosing the 788. The A338 will force a slightly-lower 8-abreast configuration, while it would be easier to pack more people into a 788's 3-3-3 economy. They could even try 2-3-2 business/premium with the 788.

Some of the upcoming LV routes are rather long. The upcoming BCN-SCL will by a couple km beat AR's FCO-EZE as the longest A330 flight, and with LV's relatively more dense configuration, the A332 may already be pushed to the limits on that flight. Keep in mind that many S. American airports (not SCL, but think SJO, BOG, UIO) are high-altitude, which further diminishes a twinjet's capability. The 788 should have the range for such flights, not so sure about the A338/A339.

This will almost certainly be a B789 vs A338 competition. The B788 is quite a lot smaller than the A332 and would likely not offer a significant reduction in CASM compared to the current fleet. Both the A338 and the B788/789 will have no meaningful performance or range issues from the hot and high airports, not so with the larger A339.

This will almost certainly be a B789 vs A338 competition. The B788 is quite a lot smaller than the A332 and would likely not offer a significant reduction in CASM compared to the current fleet. Both the A338 and the B788/789 will have no meaningful performance or range issues from the hot and high airports, not so with the larger A339.

The 788 is a bit (not a lot) smaller than the 332 in floor area, but assuming 8Y in the 332 and 9Y in the 788, the two aircraft typically have almost the same capacity. The 789 by contrast is quite a lot bigger.

As an example where hot and high performance is relevant, look at Avianca - the 332 has 252 seats, and the 788 has 250--and that's with a less space-efficient business product on the 788.

Similarly, Qatar has 252 on their 788s and 262, with a tighter business-class product, on their 332 configuration that is most similar in density to the 788.

If LEVEL is looking at 9Y A330s, that's a different story, but their current 332 product is 8Y.

I don't mean to dwell endlessly on this; I just don't see why the 788 wouldn't be considered in this contest or be a reasonable product for these missions.

This will almost certainly be a B789 vs A338 competition. The B788 is quite a lot smaller than the A332 and would likely not offer a significant reduction in CASM compared to the current fleet. Both the A338 and the B788/789 will have no meaningful performance or range issues from the hot and high airports, not so with the larger A339.

The 788 is a bit (not a lot) smaller than the 332 in floor area, but assuming 8Y in the 332 and 9Y in the 788, the two aircraft typically have almost the same capacity. The 789 by contrast is quite a lot bigger........I don't mean to dwell endlessly on this; I just don't see why the 788 wouldn't be considered in this contest or be a reasonable product for these missions.

Because the 787-8 has less range. 6000nm great circle, BCN-SCL, are on the very edge what it can do with a high density cabin. The 787-9 and A338 do that comfortably, with the A338 outranging the Boeing, simply because of less payload due to the smaller cabin and the extra fuel that allows on board.